(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)

Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada

Date: Friday, April 2, 2010, 3:15 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Statement
- (1) Haiti Donors Conference and G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting
- (2) The United Nations Security Council
- (3) Executions of Japanese Citizens in China
Kidnapping of Japanese Citizen in Afghanistan
US Military Realignment Issue
G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting
The Northern Territories Issue
Research Whaling (Indictment of the Captain of Sea Shepherd)
Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue
Opening of Press Conferences (to All Media)
Privatization of Postal Services
United Nations Security Council

1. Opening Statement

(1) Haiti Donors Conference and G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting

Minister Okada: I will speak on three points. The first point is my trip. On March 31st, I traveled to New York in order to attend the Haiti Donors Conference being held there. I additionally attended the G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting, and had a bilateral talk with Secretary Gates of the US, and US State Secretary Clinton, etc.
Firstly, regarding the Haiti Donors Conference, I believe that it was an extremely fruitful conference, with 59 countries and international institutions pledging total relief of US $5.3 billion. I announced that we will give a total of $ 100 million in aid, adding $30 million dollars, which includes such things as construction of temporary housing and measures against infectious diseases. I believe that it was carried in one of the newspapers, but Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were both standing out at the conference. One of them said in their opening remarks that they went to Haiti for their honeymoon, and that appears to have made a very deep impression on them, thus they put an extremely large amount of energy into hosting the conference.
The last G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held in September in New York, at night over dinner. Following that, this time we discussed issues for a day and a half. The statement by the chair, or the results of the Foreign Ministers' Meeting, are already out on paper, so I think you have seen those already, we were supposed to have free discussion with small number of people. I think that this was also the policy of the Canadian government. There are 9 representatives from G8 plus the EU, and each representative was accompanied by one person – in the case of Japan, this was Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Sasae – so all together there were 18 people around the table at the discussion. Of course, only the 9 representatives are able to make statements. Some of the foreign ministers have been in their positions for a long time, and there was an extremely interesting exchange of views based on each minister's experiences. France's Minister of Foreign Affairs Kouchner is one of the founders of M.S.F., so I believe that he became quite smooth tongued to speak about his experiences in those days. During this discussion, on the issue of nuclear weapons, I asked whether the expression "take one step closer to a world without nuclear weapons" could be incorporated into the text in some form. I also asked if "reduce the role of nuclear weapons" could be incorporated. Our officials actually stayed up nearly all night negotiating this, but it was very difficult to reach, so I myself submitted this case again, and we discussed it for about 60 minutes, including the session after the photo shot. I also made five or six statements, but the meeting uses a consensus system, and France was strongly opposed, and in the end the other EU countries also supported France, so unfortunately, this language did not make it into the document this time. But we had an extremely good discussion, and I think that if we continue to discuss issues of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation at places like the G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting, and especially the issue of disarmament, the debate will gradually grow in depth.
Chatting with French Minister of Foreign Affairs Kouchner after the meeting, I told him that I would study France's nuclear policy very carefully, find the weak points, and definitely defeat him in the debate the next time, but nuclear states have their own logic and emotion about nuclear weapons, and I plan to continue to cultivate the debate while maintaining a firm grasp of this fact.
I had bilateral talks with the respective ministers, but with relation to the United States in particular, I exchanged views with Secretary Gates for about 40 minutes. It was an extremely genial discussion. A briefing has already been given on the contents of this discussion, so I will not repeat that, but we have agreed to discuss this well moving forward. Secretary Gates told me, "Let's meet in the near future." I said June was good, and he asked if we should meet in Singapore. Every year, there is a meeting of Defense Ministers in Singapore, and he thought I was talking about that, so I said no, not that but after the end of May, and he said, "OK." So I said I would like to resolve the Futenma issue thoroughly at the end of May, and then meet in June. Of course, we may meet before then as well. My meeting with Secretary of State Clinton was about 25 minutes, because it was just before the (Foreign Ministers') meeting. Although we also spoke about the Futenma issue, our discussion focused in particular on the issues of Iran and Myanmar. As for my meeting with National Security Advisor Jones, he had gone to Afghanistan together with the president, so we almost literally passed each other going through Washington, but in Canada I spent about another hour speaking with him over the telephone. Although our conversation touched slightly on Futenma, it was nearly entirely about the Iran issue. Be that as it may, I believe that it was a worthwhile discussion.

(2) The United Nations Security Council

Minister: Next, this month (April), Japan will chair the UN Security Council. Consequently, we have an extremely great responsibility with regard to the Iran issue and other issues, but on the 16th, we will bring up the peace-building issue on which Japan puts much importance, and we plan to hold a meeting on this theme. If I can gain the approval of the Diet, I plan to travel to New York to chair this meeting. This month, while we chair the council, the council will take up the issue of extending the mission of the UN PKO (UNMIS) in Sudan – to which Japan has also dispatched personnel – or the situation in the Middle East, etc., there is also a possibility to discuss the nuclear issue in Iran, which I just mentioned. As the chairing country, we plan to show leadership in order to enable the Security Council to deal properly with these key issues for the international community.

(3) Executions of Japanese Citizens in China

Minister: My third point is regarding the executions carried out in China on Japanese citizens for drug smuggling. We were notified on March 29th that the execution on MitsunobuAkano, who had been sentenced to death for the crime of drug trafficking. Then yesterday, April 1st, we were notified that a total of three other Japanese citizens had been executed: Teruo Takeda, Hironori Ukai, and Katsuo Mori. Japan has communicated its interests and concerns regarding the executions to the Chinese foreign affairs authorities through our embassy in China and other channels, but after receiving the notification on March 29th of the execution on Akano, on the afternoon of March 31st, our embassy in China submitted Japan's concerns to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. However, we were further informed that three individuals had been executed. In response, this afternoon we will invite Chinese Ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghuato the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where I plan to express our concerns over the executions directly.

2. Kidnapping of Japanese Citizen in Afghanistan

Nezu, NHK: A Japanese freelance journalist is reported to be missing in Afghanistan, and there are claims that he has been kidnapped. Please confirm or deny this report, and tell us how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will respond.

Minister: I have no comment.

Nezu, NHK: Are you unable to confirm whether the journalist is missing?

Minister: I will not comment on that.

Hatakeyama, Freelance: You just stated "I have no comment" in response to the question about Mr. Tsuneoka, who is missing in Afghanistan. What is the reason for this response?

Minister: I have no comment, including confirming or denying what you have just stated.

Uesugi, Freelance: With regard to KosukeTsuneoka, who was detained by unknown persons in Afghanistan, according to a report this morning by Fuji Television, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also currently investigating the facts. Could you confirm or deny this, and the facts reported (by Fuji Television)?

Minister: I will refrain from making comments, including on those points.

Saito, Kyodo News: I would again like to ask the reason for your response of "no comment." By this I mean that we also understand that in some cases, it is not possible to make information about the safety of Japanese citizens public. Therefore, I would like to know the background for why you cannot comment. Do you mean that you can never comment about the safety of Japanese citizens, or that you cannot comment on this particular case?

Minister: Explaining this point could be linked to a statement on some fact, so I cannot comment, including on this point.

3. US Military Realignment Issue

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: This is regarding the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. After your meeting with Secretary Gates, you told the press corps that the current plan would be extremely difficult to implement. In the past, you have stated that you are starting from zero, and so that you would also consider the current plan. Could you tell us about this change from a base of zero to the recognition that the current plan will be difficult to implement?

Minister: I also read the article that you wrote, but my thinking has not changed at all. From the beginning, I have approached the issue from a base of zero – in other words, I have said that it is also a candidate for consideration – but there was always a difficult aspect to it. We have been very consistent in saying that the proposal we are considering now is more feasible, so my views have not changed in any way whatsoever.

4. G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting

Iwakami, Freelance: Now, I have two questions about the points you spoke on in your opening statement. I believe that the press corps that accompanied you has been briefed, and this has been covered elsewhere as well, but there are also Internet media and others. Please speak about what is going on there to the Japanese people, in as much detail as possible. My first question is regarding the extremely heated dispute over nuclear policy, with France in particular: if possible, I would like you to speak about this in a little more detail; next, you said earlier with regard to your discussion with Secretary Gates, that you would not give more details than that you briefed him; at the risk of repetition, please speak on this subject directly to the Japanese people.

Minister: Regarding nuclear policy, earlier, I used two expressions: "commitment to a world without nuclear weapons," and "reduce the role of nuclear weapons." President Obama used both of these expressions in his speech in Prague, and I stated that these expressions should be included in the resulting document. In response, France's Minister of Foreign Affairs Kouchner in particular said on French policy, that France had been reducing its nuclear arsenal voluntarily, but that it does not take the approach of reducing the role of nuclear weapons. For example, the first thing that comes to mind when one hears "reduce the role of nuclear weapons" is a negative security assurance on nuclear weapons, which is a promise not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, but France does not necessarily take this approach. According to his explanation, France has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in order to ensure its national security, even in response to an attack with conventional weapons, and the approach that I stated of reducing the role of nuclear weapons is not compatible with this stance. He added that this is a major national policy, and not something that can be handled at the foreign minister level, so there is no way to budge on this. France, therefore, wanted us to follow the statements that were made at last year's G8 summit. I felt we have had a year since then, so forward progress should be indicated; and partway through the meeting I said that I would like this to go into the record, even if only as a statement by the chair, but France was said to be extremely inflexible on this point. Also, I do not think that too much should be said about which country said what, some countries made statements that took my side, but -- perhaps you could call it cooperation within the EU -- in the end, that was the result. Also, the rule is that you do not write things down if a consensus cannot be reached, so if even one person is strongly opposed to something, it will not be written down. And that is why it was not included this time. Since Russia has not rejected first use of nuclear weapons, it also cannot agree to this. One thing I will say now is that since there are nuclear states that do not necessarily reject the first use of nuclear weapons, or the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, In order to make the negative security assurance more effective, every nuclear state should adopt this approach, for example, in a form of a Security Council resolution. Otherwise, it will just end in a mere declaration. I gained a renewed sense that I must discuss this with each country thoroughly. Another thing I will say is that the G8 Summit has an extremely unique composition, with both nuclear and non-nuclear states, and I also gained a renewed sense that thorough discussion of this matter here could be extremely effective at advancing the overall reduction of nuclear arms. If I went further than this, people would think that Japan’s new Foreign Minister is eccentric person, and we cannot have that, so since an hour out of a day and a half of discussion is a considerable amount of time, and since there were no other heated discussions, I decided to abandon my appeal.
Next, regarding my meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates, I believe that this has probably already been out in writing, and although I do not think that the details should be spoken about too specifically, I did not explain Japan's approach concretely. The same applies to Secretary of State Clinton. This is something that I explained to Ambassador to Japan Roos, and the policy I am taking is to not divulge the contents of that at this time. I will say that Secretary of Defense Gates had some slight questions about feasibility, and in the course of our conversation, I said that although I was well aware of the view of the US government that the original agreement would be best, in terms of actual feasibility, we believe that the approach that we proposed is more feasible, and so we would like them to consider it seriously.

Nishino, Kyodo News: You stated that Japan's approach is more feasible than the current plan agreed to by Japan and the US. Prime Minister Hatoyama said before the Diet that he had a plan in mind, and that it had a high level of feasibility. Was the Japanese approach that you indicated to US Ambassador to Japan Roos roughly the same as the plan mentioned by the Prime Minister?

Minister: Not roughly the same, but the same.

Nishino, Kyodo News: So, they are completely identical?

Minister: Yes

Takahashi, Jiji Press: My question is about your meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates. After the talks, the Pentagon released a statement publishing a portion of what was said by Secretary Gates in that meeting. According to this, Secretary Gates said that the presence of the Marines in Okinawa was critical, and that the United States expected the Japanese government to do its best to ensure that the Marines' presence remains both operationally and politically sustainable. This was officially announced in a Pentagon statement.
Then in the briefing by the Japanese government, statements like "operationally" and "politically" were not mentioned to us. I would like to ask why this was not mentioned, and whether you refuted or made a counterargument to these statements.

Minister: It is up to each side how much of the discussions to make public, so although I understand that the Japanese side has not spoken about this in detail, in my understanding, Secretary Gates' statement about whether operational sustainability could be maintained is reasonable thing to say.
Another thing I will say is that the political aspect is a local issue. Also, he was speaking with regard to the political situation in Japan, but I told him that the Japanese government would take responsibility for acting in this regard, and asked him to leave this to us. I also told him that even without comments by them, the Japanese government would thoroughly handle the matter internally.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: In relation to what you said just now, my question is about the task of gaining the understanding or consent of the local people. How will you advance on this task moving forward? I believe that your briefing to Ambassador Roos is the start of your explanation to the United States, and that you will also start negotiations with the US, but could you speak a little about the timeline: whether you will advance these negotiations in parallel, or whether you will move ahead with the local people first.

Minister: Regarding the order in which we proceed, I would like to refrain from answering at this time. I will say, however, that as the final outcome, the relocation will only be possible once we have gained the understanding of the local residents, and an agreement with the United States.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: My question includes how things will proceed moving forward, but at the press conference held by the Chief Cabinet Secretary this morning, you had just returned to Japan, so it was stated that they must go ahead with the concerned cabinet ministers, or rather with a conference of concerned cabinet ministers, by the end of the day, but will such a conference be held today?

Minister: That is a matter to be decided by the Prime Minister’s office, but if the Chief Cabinet Secretary said that, then I think that is what the case is.

Nezu, NHK: You will be visiting the United States, while Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa goes to Okinawa and explains matters to the local community. How will you share these results with Minister Kitazawa and the Ministry of Defense, and how do you intend to discuss matters?

Minister: As for collaboration between ministers, we hold frequent and substantial exchanges of information, so if you ask me "how" we will do it, I can only answer, "As we always do it."

Nanao, Niconico Video: Thank you for allowing me to accompany you and report on your overseas visit. This question may mix up the timeline, but after the joint press conference at the G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting, Secretary of State Clinton said regarding the Futenma base issue, "We still hold the opinion that the original plan is preferable." Meanwhile, she also said that they were ready to consider proposals that the Japanese Government may make to them. In Canada, you said regarding this statement that you did not know, because there are various interpretations. After leaving some time, I would like to ask you to think back again, and tell us your interpretation of the true intent of Secretary of State Clinton's statement.

Minister: I think that it is best not to say that this statement contains the Secretary's true intent. She was not saying anything new; the United States has always said that the original plan was the best. But she said that if you ask whether the original plan is the one that we must use, they were ready to listen. Last week, we briefed Secretary of Defense Gates on our approach precisely because they are ready to listen.

Nishino, Kyodo News: As you have spoken with Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates, I believe that you will be moving forward at the working level. Could you tell us the outlook for this?

Minister: All we can do is do our best.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Will this be at the director-general level? Or will it be at a slightly lower level?

Minister: I do not see any particular need to say this.

Iwakami, Freelance: I believe that the government plan, which has been called the "plan you have in mind," has already been decided, but my question does not relate to this. I would like to ask, apart from this, whether you think that the White Beach plan could gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa, as there has been some speculation that a "White Beach" plan will be floated. Currently, the people of Okinawa desire very strongly for the base to be moved outside the prefecture, and to be sure the base would be over the sea, and would no longer be over land on an island; what are your thoughts on this? Please tell us your views.

Minister: I have no comment on your question.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: Regarding the original plan in the Japan-US agreement, at this conference I believe that you also said that it would be very difficult. So is your awareness unchanged that the original plan is included in the range of options at the current time? Has the possibility of the original plan been eliminated? As you state that you are starting from a "base of zero," I would like to ask again whether the original plan is still included in the options.

Minister: I believe that I answered this earlier, but I have always said that we are starting from a base of zero. That has not changed. Overall, this would be more difficult that the plan that the government is currently considering, but the statements that the plan has difficulties overall, and that the original plan has been eliminated, are much different in degree.

5. The Northern Territories Issue

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: Yesterday, I believe that an official decision was made on a new basic policy regarding resolution of the Northern Territories issue. In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry seems to be quite repulsed by the fact that the expression “sovereign territory” is expressly stated in the policy, implying that it would take action against this by suspending visa-free exchanges, etc. What is your opinion on this?

Minister: The basic policy simply stated the conventional view of the Government of Japan, so it is not necessarily easy for us to understand why they would be repulsed by it. We also have conveyed our view continuouslyat the foreign ministerial level.

Higuchi, TBS: My question is on the execution of a Japanese national carried out in China, which you touched on at the beginning. After this, you said that you intend to call the Chinese ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to express concern over the matter. Over what specific point do you plan to express concern? Additionally, does that concern differ from a request for calling off the execution? Please tell us your thoughts on this matter, including this point.

Minister: This matter is a rather difficult issue. Each country has its own laws and a judicial system. The death sentence was given in this context. With regard to the execution itself, I believe that this is a matter in which it will be rather difficult for us to squarely say such things as “please call it off.”
   If other countries were saying the same thing to Japan, I believe that it would turn into a situation where we would be saying things such as “it is matter of the independence of the judiciary” or “it is a domestic Japanese issue.”
   However, we just recently expressed concern over (planned) execution, and now there are three more persons executed in rapid succession. Therefore, the Government of Japan intends to express concern over this.
   What this concern means is that the fact that in this way, one Japanese national will be executed and this will happen to three more for a total of four Japanese nationals will affect domestic public opinion, or that since there will be so many executions, there are voices among the public questioning whether proper procedures were followed. I would like to convey as our concern the fact that there are such voices.
   Another point, while this is something that I would like to convey to the Japanese people, is that there are very many countries, particularly in Southeast Asia or Asia, where the maximum penalty for drug-related crime is capital punishment. The maximum penalty in not only China, but also such countries as Indonesia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, is capital punishment. I would like the Japanese citizens to conduct themselves thoroughly acknowledging this point.
   Of course, a drug-related crime itself naturally constitutes a crime in Japan as well, but I would like people to thoroughly understand that in terms of assessment of penalties, there are many countries where extremely heavy penalties are imposed.

Sakamaki, Bloomberg News: With regard to (the details of your meeting with) the Foreign Minister of Jordan today, please give us an explanation concerning what was achieved in terms of cooperation, especially in the area of energy, including whether talks will be started toward an atomic energy agreement, for example.

Minister: I held a meeting with the Jordanian Foreign Minister just a while ago. I subsequently paid a visit to the King of Jordan and held talks for about 30 minutes. I believe that the Prime Minister and the King are holding talks right now. Perhaps the meeting has ended already. Amid this situation, Japan considers Jordan a very important country, highly evaluates the role it has been playing in the Middle East peace process, and has repeatedly given economic aid all this time. Discussions were held on such matters.
In addition, with regard to the issue of atomic energy that you just mentioned, we talked about expediting the conclusion of an agreement for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

6. Research Whaling (Indictment of the Captain of Sea Shepherd)

Wang, Reuters: It was just reported that Captain Peter Bethune of the Sea Shepherd, who is currently being interrogated by the police, has been indicted. With regard to this, tell us what diplomatic concerns exist between the Government of Japan and the Government of New Zealand.

Minister: There are reports on what you just mentioned, but this is a matter with which judicial authorities are concerned. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have any particular comments on this.

7. Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: My question is about the secret agreement issue. I praise your proactive position, but…

Minister: Considering that, your articles are harsh.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Actually, we are cheering you on and praising you at the same time, but I feel that Foreign Ministry bureaucrats are really resentful. For example, Weekly Post, which is currently on sale, carries the following comments by a senior Foreign Ministry official: “The Prime Minister’s Office wants to have the Prime Minister himself settle the Japan-US agreement on Futenma Air Station in order to boost the public support rating, and Mr. Ozawa wants to eradicate his negative image by visiting the United States. In that case, only leisurely tasks such as conducting investigations into the secret agreements between Japan and the United States or paying a consolation visit to victims of the great earthquake in Haiti come around for Foreign Minister Okada, who misled the public with his own idea of integrating Futenma Air Station with Kadena Air Base.”
Please tell us whether you think conducting investigations into the Japan-US secret agreements is a leisurely task and what you future plans are, if you have any information that you can disclose.

Minister: I believe that the comments were made on the premise that I am not in charge of the Futenma issue, but that in itself clearly shows that those are not comments coming from a senior Foreign Ministry official.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: What about the secret agreement?

Minister: I will not make any comment on such remarks that cannot be ascertained as true or false.

Nishino, Kyodo News: This morning, there was a questioning of an unsworn witness at a session of the Foreign Affairs Committee. During the session, there emerged two major issues. One was the issue of evaluation of a report (compiled by the Experts Committee (for investigating the so-called secret agreements)), and the other was the issue of destruction of documents that was brought up by an expert who attended (the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee).
Let us start with the first point. With regard to the secret agreement on re-introduction of nuclear weapons into Okinawa, Professor Gabe referred to it as “the secret agreement of secret agreements.” There are various theories for that, but putting this aside, Mr. Niihara said to the effect that with regard to the re-introduction of nuclear weapons in 1960, the Government of Japan was clearly aware of this since that time.
Do you plan to conduct some kind of investigation in response to these points made by such disputants? That is my first question.

Minister: I have no plans to conduct investigations. It is a matter of how you define secret agreements. In addition, there were no documents at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the re-introduction of nuclear weapons into Okinawa. Therefore, the answer remains the same regardless of further investigation.
With regard to the point that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was aware of the re-introduction of nuclear weapons into Okinawa ever since then, I have no idea on what grounds that statement is being made, and instead, I would like to have that clarified. I feel that the reality is that everyone was surprised and reacted by saying, “What?” when Mr. Wakaizumi’s book came out.

Nishino, Kyodo News: As for your comment “on what grounds,” which you just spoke of, Mr. Niihara was referring to the fact that (the Government of Japan) was aware of it (the re-introduction of nuclear weapons into Okinawa) in 1960 based on the US side’s cable sent by Ambassador to Japan MacArthur in 1958.

Minister: Is that about Okinawa?

Nishino, Kyodo News: No, not about Okinawa.

Minister: You said Okinawa earlier, didn’t you?

Nishino, Kyodo News: Mr. Gabe said that there was a secret agreement on the re-introduction of nuclear weapons into Okinawa, and Mr. Niihara said that (the Government of Japan) was aware of the re-introduction of nuclear weapons in 1960. It means there were two (secret agreements).

Minister: Which agreement in 1960 are you talking about?

Nishino, Kyodo News: The first of the four secret agreements.

Minister: It is confusing if you do not clearly specify it.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Mr. Niihara talked about the first one, while Mr. Gabe talked about the third one.

Minister: The third one is a matter of definition of secret agreements, so there is room for debate, and I encourage scholars to conduct further discussions. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its part, has never touched on whether there were secret agreements or not. The experts are saying that it was not a secret agreement, but I have been saying all along that there will likely be various arguments concerning this. I think there should be a lot of debate conducted on it from various perspectives. In addition, with regard to the first secret agreement, the Japanese Communist Party has also given us their opinion, but as I have heard that Mr. Sakamoto, who was also a member of the Experts Committee, replied to questioning today, the Committee has said that basically, with the information that is available, it cannot be said that secret agreements existed from the beginning, and it has been concluded in the (Committee’s) examination and the report as such. There could be a different conclusion if we stand on the premise that the US cable is completely correct, but considering that that is not necessarily the case, we made a judgment in a comprehensive manner. Nevertheless, with regard to the issue of whether secret agreements existed from the beginning, it eventually became clear that Japan and the United States had a different understanding, and that led to future briefings to the prime ministers and the foreign ministers based on that premise. Therefore, even though timing may have been a problem, it was just a matter of deviation by a few years.

Nishino, Kyodo News: I have another question about the questioning of unsworn witnesses. Mr. Sakamoto and Mr. Haruna once again expressed strong regret over the destruction of documents, as did the (Committee’s) report. They in fact said that sincere examinations should be conducted in order to restore the credibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In addition, in relation to former Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Yachi, the issue of former Treaties Bureau Director-General Togo’s red files was brought up, and requests are coming from some members of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party to (allow them to) listen to what Mr. Yachi has to say.

Minister: Coming from where?

Nishino, Kyodo News: From the opposition party.

Minister: What do you mean by “also?”

Nishino, Kyodo News: Additionally, Committee Chairman Suzuki also said he wants to proceed in that direction.

Minister: I was not aware of that.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Mr. Minister, you said that you wanted to form an investigative committee consisting of a small number of members, but how will this proceed in the future?

Minister: Since the members have been decided for the most part, I think I will be able to make an announcement on the members on next Tuesday.

Higa, Kyodo News: Let us return to the issue of destruction of documents. Under what kind of a timetable do you expect the small-group committee to come up with results?

Minister: That is what we will start discussing now. Since I was away for a week, we will hold consultations and perhaps I will be able to talk about it to a certain extent on next Tuesday. However, while there are many things being said about the destruction of documents, I cannot comment on whether massive amount of documents were destroyed before Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs came into effect because it is only speculation. All government offices have naturally sorted out their material and filed them in preparation for information disclosure, so currently I am not envisaging conducting investigation into this matter. I intend to examine closely the concrete matters that are being said.

Higa, Kyodo News: Does that mean that only the red files left behind by Mr. Togo will be subject to examinations?

Minister: I do not think it is a good idea to pinpoint the matter down to that extent. The scope of our examinations will gradually be determined as we go along. We are not going to decide now on what we will examine before we start.

8. Opening of Press Conferences (to All Media)

Uesugi, freelance: Press conferences by the Prime Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office were made open (to all media) last Friday. This came six months after press conferences were made open at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, the Administrative Management Bureau under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications graded the degree of openness of the press conferences and gave a ranking of “A” to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the same ranking as the press conference by the Prime Minister. Please tell us how you feel about this evaluation.

Minister: I am glad about being given high marks, but it bothers me why the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications goes around rating us. It is true that administrative supervision is one of the roles of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, but I do not quite understand why bureaucrats go around ranking ministers’ press conferences. I can understand if the government selects a proper third party and have this third party say something about the press conferences. In addition, I do not know what criteria were used for the evaluation or why we have to be evaluated by bureaucrats on such things.

Uesugi, freelance: What is your impression of the Prime Minister’s press conference?

Minister: I think it was good. I would like to have him continue to do so in the future.

9. Privatization of Postal Services

Kubota, Reuters: My question concerns privatization of postal services. I have heard from the EU that US Ambassador to Japan (John V.) Roos and EU Ambassador to Japan (Hugh) Richardson sent letters to the Government of Japan early last month expressing their concern over the issue of the privatization of postal services. Please tell us about the contents of the letters that you received including whether it was written in the letters that raising the limit on deposits at Japan Post Bank to 20 million yen is in violation of the WTO Agreement, which I believe concerns trade in services, and the Leaders’ Statement at the G20 Leaders’ Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy.

Minister: I will not talk about the contents of the letters. I think it would rather be better for the side that conveyed the message to talk about it. It is not something that the side that received the message should talk about.
Additionally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its part, has repeatedly exchanged opinions with government offices in charge of postal reforms, asserting that, for example, the reforms should not result in giving special privileges to Japanese citizens, or in other words, not allow discriminatory treatment between domestic and foreign business operators, i.e., the reforms must be consistent with international accords. Therefore, I believe that those things will ultimately be incorporated into the legislation.

Kubota, Reuters: Do you have any plans in the future to directly explain this matter to Ambassador Roos and Ambassador Richardson?

Minister: I believe that the government offices that are in charge should give the explanation as necessary when the legislation has reached the final stages.

10. United Nations Security Council

Takahashi, Asahi Shimbun: I would like to hear your comments on a session on peace-building efforts, which you will be chairing on April 16 at the United Nations. The concept of peace-building is quite broad, but is there anything in particular that you want to talk about?

Minister: I would like to take up specific examples and talk about them, and while peace-building is very important, there are various types of assistance, such as PKO (peacekeeping operations), economic assistance, or efforts to create a new legal system, but at the moment, they are considered separately like a patchwork. Therefore, I would like to promote discussions on revitalizing these countries with the involvement of the international community, taking specific case for example with the thought that they (assistance) should be considered and coordinated as one thing.
For Haiti and other countries, that is precisely the case. I mentioned in my speech that “it would be meaningless to bring Haiti back to how it was before the earthquake” and that it is necessary to firmly build up a national framework, including hospitals, economic development, education, and other things. It is precisely in this perspective that I would like to promote peace-building efforts.

Back to Index